I thought this criticism of HOMP ought to feature in its correct place; quite frankly, I would be suprised if MM had read any of these reports.
From Moochie Moo:-
JimL, I read your other post regarding the HOMP report with interest and wanted to express my views:
HOMP is the latest version of the North Sea's 'Emperor's New Clothes'.
If you think an algorithm based on Cooper-Harper ratings can assess workload without the qualitative input of a calibrated human, it goes to show how little is understood about what is being done here. Give industry a fraction of what is being spent on this white elephant in the form of additional training hours and efforts training-the-trainer, and I assure you the rate of incidents will reduce.
This is another example of what the UK 'committee syndrome' spawns, regurgitating the same issues year after year achieving very little in real-world operational safety matters and when money is spent, it is misdirected.
Rig design for helicopter operations is not rocket science, and neither is landing a helicopter on a rig. Developing HOMP for turbulence assessment is nothing more than idle intellectual musings.
If HOMP has been recommended for inclusion in ICAO Annex 6 Part III (tell me it ain't so!), my bet is was done so by someone who knows little of operating outside of the North Sea. To put this forward for inclusion in an international document is waaaay too premature.
It isn't progress JimL, it's misidentification of the real issues. This whole subject is also a case-in-point of why the Americans have a helicopter manufacturing industry and the British don't.
Disregard the last sentence. I had the urge to finish on an inflammatory note.